##PAGE1##

SARITA RANI

2026.04.02 18:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

RSA No. 3930 of 2023 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 051318

2. The brief factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the plaintiff–appellant is the father of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2, whereas defendant No.3 is the mother of defendant No.1. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2006 and had permi%ed defendant No.2, being his son, to reside therein a&er marriage. Alleging that the defendants intended to grab the property, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 29.05.2013 executed in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and without consideration. Consequential reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction

were also sought.

3. The defendants contested the suit, specifically pleading that the plaintiff himself had executed a valid sale deed dated 29.05.2013 (Ex.PW2/B) in favour of defendant No.1 for a consideration of ₹17,50,000/-, thereby

transferring absolute title in the suit property.

4. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court returned a categorical finding that the execution of the sale deed dated 29.05.2013 stood duly proved and that the plaintiff had failed to establish any fraud, misrepresentation or absence of consideration in respect thereof. It was thus held that the plaintiff had divested himself of all rights in the suit property.

The suit was accordingly dismissed.

5. The learned First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, re-appreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was noticed that the plaintiff himself admi%ed execution of the sale deed, though he a%empted to dispute the intention and receipt of consideration. The Appellate Court rightly observed that once execution of a registered sale deed is admi%ed, title stands transferred in favour of the vendee, and such document cannot be lightly set aside in absence of cogent proof of fraud or illegality. It was further observed that in case the plaintiff had not received the sale consideration, his remedy, if any, would lie in

seeking recovery thereof, subject to law.

SARITA RANI

2026.04.02 18:20 I attest to the accuracy Page 2 of 4 of this document/order

RSA No. 3930 of 2023 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 051318

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and have erroneously

dismissed the suit.

7. The said contention does not merit acceptance.

8. It is well se%led that in a second appeal, interference by this Court is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse, based on

misreading of evidence, or in violation of se%led legal principles.

9. In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff executed the registered sale deed dated 29.05.2013 in favour of defendant No.1. The execution of the document stands admi%ed by the plaintiff himself. In such circumstances, a statutory presumption of validity a%aches to the registered sale deed, and the burden lay heavily upon the plaintiff to establish that the same was vitiated by fraud, coercion,

misrepresentation or absence of consideration.

10. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the said burden. Mere bald assertion that no consideration was paid is insufficient to invalidate a registered sale deed, particularly when no cogent evidence has been led to substantiate such plea. It is equally well se%led that inadequacy or even non- payment of consideration does not, by itself, render a sale deed void; at best,

it may give rise to a separate cause of action for recovery of the amount.

11. Furthermore, the suit itself appears to be barred by limitation. The sale deed in questi